If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
logged in.
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
click here
to get your online account activated.

Comments (39)

Like this comment

Posted by PM_YMCA_the_best
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 14, 2014 at 2:33 pm

I urge all Page Mill YMCA members to attend this meeting.

I also urge YMCA members of other facilities, especially members of the Ross Rd (PA Family) and residents of Midtown, Palo Alto to attend this meeting.

There will be approximately 3000 Page Mill members displaced by this closure. Page Mill members are being encouraged to transfer to either the Ross Road or EPA YMCA. Folks aren't generally enthused about transferring to EPA, but Ross Road is closer and the logical option for many of those who aren't entirely fed up.

Midtown Residents: Do you want the traffic associated with 3000 extra members and their cars shuttling through to the Ross Road YMCA?

All YMCA members: The decision to close our facility was done without talking with us and at the close of a very successful capital fundraising campaign. The same SV YMCA Board that treated us this was could do the same to you. This is your opportunity to let them know that its a lousy way to treat membership and do business.

Posted by Nothinbutthetruth
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:14 pm

Everybody needs to make sure that Elizabeth Jordan and the other staff members stick with their origianl justifications for closing the "Y." For if they have to stand by their original reasons than they lack any justification for closing the "Y."

Elizebeth Jordan stated in the June 24, 2014 PaloAltoonline that the decsion to close the Page Mill Y was not due to the rent or that it was not making a profit. "Jordan said the closure has nothing to do with rising rents."Web Link

"We certainly could stay at the facility,
but we're choosing to do something a little different because we feel as a not-for-profit, our (goal) is to be constantly looking for ways we can serve more and better in any community. That's really our objective." Elizabeth JordanWeb Link

She claimed in that article that the closure was solely based upon that there was not enough natural light and that there was no way to construct natural light into the basement. Then when there was a big backlash she and her office mates started pulling everything out of their hat that they could to justify the closure because if she had stuck with her original reason she would have to keep the Page Mill "Y" open. Web Link

People who don't like the lack of light don't come here, it hasn't been a problem for 35 years and now all of a sudden it is, Hmmm?

"After some careful consideration, we decided it would be best to put our resources into our other facilities and programming in Palo Alto that would better serve the community," Jordan said.

"We" did not include the "Y" members who pay Jordan's salary and who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for the last twenty years for the "Y."

Here is where they change their story by providing answers to there latest unjustified reasons:
1) An indoor elevator is not required.
2) The cycling room does not need any more ventilation.
3) The whirlpools cannot be fixed, replace them, will buy new ones. And if it is too expensive shut them down.
4) The PMY serves 3,000 people of all ages.Web Link

Posted by Ross Road Member
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 14, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Today at mid morning which is usually quiet it was extremely busy. I don't use the parking lot as I walk, but there were only a couple of compact spaces and there were cars illegally parked alongside the back wall of the Y which makes it difficult for legally parked cars to back out of their spots. I had to wait at the desk for people unfamiliar with the Y to ask questions before being able to check in. I had to wait in line for the fitlinxx machines. I was able to use the last security locker available. Waiting and taking turns at the machines was like playing musical chairs and there was a wait for space in the stretching room and no mats left at one stage. I spent as long as I am usually there but only did about half a workout and left because I had to be somewhere and couldn't hang around any longer. The topic of conversation between members was the Page Mill closure and everybody was concerned that we would not be able to enjoy our workouts if Ross Road gets any busier.

Posted by neighbor
a resident of another community
on Jul 14, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Nothinbutthetruth...
You state that "An indoor elevator is not required" and "The cycling room does not need any more ventilation." Are you sure about that? There are Health & Safety and ADA requirements for both of these items. The current facility is not in compliance, and the rehab costs are huge.

How about working WITH the Y to find an alternative location in the immediate area that meets code? How about having a figure in mind for the increased fees that you will be willing to pay for such a location?

Posted by Nothinbutthetruth
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:26 pm

Neighbor, you read my other posts in which I inserted this linkWeb Link
verifying that an elevator is not required by the ADA.

Public Accommodations
Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?
A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is unlikely in most cases.

Two: Initially I posted that the bicycles could be moved back upstairs or removed altogether for the bikes were upstairs 5 years ago and were not even in the gym 10 years ago we could simply purchase the ventilation.

Then members who use the bikes started pointing out that they don't need anymore ventilation, thus there is no problem.

Posted by Karen White
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm

When the Y was expanded, it was subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Here's the link to the City Council meeting minutes, including information on the CUP. (It's single spaced with the items all run together, so interested residents will need to scroll down to find the YMCA item -- but indeed it's there.)

It will be important to know whether the Conditional Use Permit, based on the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the expansion, would be breached by potential new traffic and parking impacts, should PM Y members transfer to Ross Road. This is a critical land use issue that Silicon Valley Y leaders should be ready to address at Wednesday's meeting.

Posted by No plans without data and numbers
a resident of Esther Clark Park
on Jul 14, 2014 at 6:48 pm

Dear Neighbor,

As many have previously pointed out, we have repeatedly ask for the numbers, rent, donations, out of area Page Mill users etc. and have not gotten answers from YMCASV. Until then we cannot plan, fund raise, or propose another plan of action. As it was from beginning, lack of communication started this mess and no useful proposals can be formulated until we get the information we asked for. We hope that Wednesday's meeting gives us the answers we need. We can't work with someone who won't speak to us or give us numbers and answers.

Posted by Parking, noise, traffic out of compliance with usage agreement with City
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jul 14, 2014 at 7:25 pm

Thank you for pointing this out, Karen White,
Part of the City's agreement with the Ross Road YMCA and its neighbors is shown below. Have they contacted the City, Parking Commission, and neighbors for permission and approval? Have they undertaken the surveys listed below to plan for traffic in the neighborhood, increased noise, permit parking on the streets. If they haven't gotten approval from the City there will more than parking problems when the 1000s of new members come to Ross Road. The City of Palo Alto is reviewing a new proposal which may require parking permits in residential areas such as Ross Road. Members of Ross Road you need to be aware of the problems that are about to start.

2. TRANSPORTATION 2.1 A Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program outlining efforts to be made by the YMCA to reduce vehicle trips
to the facility shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and
Trans- portation Divisions prior to occupancy of the new addition. The program
shall provide for, at mini- mum, the following: - measures to be undertaken to
increase the use of carpools, bicycle use, public transporta- tion and shuttles
by persons utilizing the YMCA facility; - the preparation of a user survey to
determine the travel patterns of users to and from the facility and the feasibility
of providing shuttle service or assisting in the organiza- tion of carpools from
certain identified locations; - an aggressive member information program advising
members of the need to reduce auto trips to the YMCA and encouraging the use of
public transit, bicycles, carpools, etc. The member information program shall
provide for a permanent information display in an area visible to all members,
preferably in the lobby. The program shall be updated and reviewed in con- junction
with the condition monitoring and opera- tions status report required in Condition
1.3. (Condition Effective Upon Execution of Use Permit) 3. PARKING AND SAFETY
3.1 Deleted. 3.2 A minimum of 206 parking spaces shall be construct- ed at the
time of project development, and a total of 248 spaces, including those to be
held in land- scape reserve, shall be indicated on the final plans approved by
the Architectural Review Board. 3.3 Conversion of some or all of the landscape
reserve to parking may be required by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator,
should the need for additional parking be indicated by the condi- tion monitoring
and operations status report re- quired by Condition 1.3. 3.4 YMCA staff shall
be instructed to park in the spaces located along the rear property line. 3.5
To provide safe sight distances for drivers of vehicles exiting the site, within
the "sight dis- tance triangle" area (as specifically defined by the Transportation
Division) of the exiting drive- ways, no landscaping (with the exception of exist-
ing trees to be retained), signs (with the excep- tion of those identified in
Condition 3.7), berms or other obstacles exceeding three feet in height shall
be allowed. Landscaping species planted within this area are limited to those
which have a maximum untrimmed natural growth height of three feet. 3.6 On-street
parking shall be prohibited within 60 feet on either side of each exiting driveway.
The applicant shall obtain the appropriate approvals from the Transportation Division
to paint the curbs red in these areas. 3.7 Stop signs shall be installed at both
exit drive- ways. Additional signage shall be placed at the exits reminding patrons
to watch for pedestrians and to drive slowly and safely. The type, size and location
of all signage shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Transportation
Divi- sions to ensure a minimum of interference with visibility for exiting drivers.
3.8 The existing rolled curb on Ross Road shall be replaced with a vertical curb,
on the YMCA side of the street, between the property lines of the YMCA. Design
and construction of the vertical curb shall be as approved by the Public Works
Department. 3.9 Bicycle parking shall be provided as required by the bicycle parking
ordinance provisions which are currently under review by the City and anticipated
to be adopted within the next 6 months. No defer- ral of spaces shall be allowed.
The location of the bicycle parking spaces shall be subject to the approval of
the Transportation Division. 3.10 Deleted. 3.11 Road bumps shall be installed
in the vicinity of the exit driveways on the YMCA site for the purpose of slowing
exiting vehicles. The bumps shall be 3-inches high, 12-feet long in the direction
of vehicle travel, and located in a position approved by the Transportation Division.
3.12 Overnight bus parking shall be prohibited at the site. Bus storage shall
be moved to a suitable location outside of a residential neighborhood. (Condition
Effective Upon Execution of Use Permit)

Posted by neighbor
a resident of another community
on Jul 14, 2014 at 7:31 pm

Sorry
You are wrong about the ADA, even tho you reference the entire statute in your reply. An elevator would be required in the Y's building as soon as any retrofits were initiated. An elevator is "readily achievable" in that building (just as it was in a club building I belong to).

As a disabled person, who was previously a city planner, I suggest you do more reading.

There are also code requirements for ventilation that must be included in any rehab as well.

Why not listen to the Y Board's explanation of their challenges --- and the try to save the facility by agreeing to pay higher fees to either underwrite the remodeling or the acquisition of a new up-to-date site?

Posted by Ken Horowitz
a resident of University South
on Jul 14, 2014 at 9:28 pm

Thank you Karen White for your information. I have spoken with the Palo Alto Planning Department regarding the conditional use permit (CUP) granted in 1991 to the Ross Road YMCA when it was expanded from 19,000 sq. ft to 25,000 sg.ft. The Palo City Council could revoke their permit for non-compliance especially if there are complaints from members, neighbors, and schools concerning parking and vehicle trips on Ross Road between Loma Verde and East Meadow. Thus the Council could act to close the Ross Road Y. It would be a shame if there were no YMCAs in Palo Alto. None of us would like that! Everyone affected by the decision to close the Page Mill Y should be at this Wednesday meeting.

Posted by Nothinbutthetruth
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 14, 2014 at 10:20 pm

Neighbor,

I gave three solutions to the bikes and the ventilation so apparently you are not paying attention. Secondarily I cited this portion of the ADA:

Public Accommodations
Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?
A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is unlikely in most cases.

Here it is in more detail if you don't understand:

Public Accommodations
Q. What are public accommodations?

A. A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.

Q. What does the term "readily achievable" mean?
A. It means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."

Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?
A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is unlikely in most cases.

Q. How is "readily achievable" determined in a multisite business?
A. In determining whether an action to make a public accommodation accessible would be "readily achievable," the overall size of the parent corporation or entity is only one factor to be considered. The ADA also permits consideration of the financial resources of the particular facility or facilities involved and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities to the parent entity.Web Link

There already exists a hydraulic lift for the handicapped at the location that Elizabeth Jordan is referring to, as such an elevator is not required especially since there nothing downstairs for a person to do who cannot use their legs at least a little bit.

Quit frankly I found it odd that you are spending so much time reading these posts to defend the "Y" so ardently when obviously the closure will not affect you in any way, don't you have life?

Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 15, 2014 at 6:17 am

For some reason "neighbor" keeps accepting everything the YMCASV says at face value, but criticizes every single poster who questions their ever changing explanations for the closure, and the mind boggling contradictions and inconsistency in their comments. It also seems like he/she has never been to the site, or he/she would know that there is an elevator that opens to the handicap friendly entry door and that the bicycle downstairs room has fans that make it well ventilated.. He/she keeps demanding that members ask for financial data when the Y keeps not providing such data. He/she keeps demanding that members just agree to a large increase in membership fees, although Elizabeth jordan never claimed that the gym was not making a profit. etc, etc.

It seems like his/her sole purpose of commenting here is to discourage members from challenging the YMCASV.

Posted by We are making headway
a resident of Mayfield
on Jul 15, 2014 at 8:38 am

We are making headway through our members continued call for information and protests:

YMCA SV refused us a meeting, we are getting one after 100s of our complaints, letters to the Board, letters to the media, calls to the National YMCA headquarters, articles in several papers and a TV spot.

We refuted every reason Elizabeth had used for closing, except for the money questions. Either she provides that information on Wednesday or has to give up that ghost of a reason.

We have asked for Ross Road members to assist us. They are slowly becoming aware of the impending onslaught of new members into their community. The City of Palo Alto is aware of the major increase in parking on city streets at Ross Road. Members at Ross Road are also complaining our closure with their executives.

We asked for ideas. Got have a great many great ones: Joining the 2 Palo A lot Ys into 1 YMCA, leaving the YMCASV all together with Palo Alto Family Y, fund-raising, volunteering, getting philanthropic sponsors for our unique "older" members health needs, going private.

We complained about intimidation in the gym by outside "Black Shirts", they are gone.

Keep those ideas and comments coming and continue to let everyone know about the YMCASVs decision.

Posted by 6daysaweekusePM
a resident of Stanford
on Jul 15, 2014 at 9:48 am

Too bad so much damage has been done already to the PM membership. Just came home from PM and it is a ghost town there now. Many racquetball players have moved on to Sunnyvale and I counted 10 people in the gym during the normally busy hours.

Posted by neighbor
a resident of another community
on Jul 15, 2014 at 10:57 am

Now I have been attacked for suggesting that folks go to the meeting with proposals for NEGOTIATING with the Y for a resolution of this problem.

I understand that the "excitement of the Cause" makes it seem like a Zero/One Fight --- but that sort of attitude tends to make bullies who paint themselves into a corner. It often stuns me to see how local residents treat solvable local problems as if they were nuclear war. One only has to read the real news to see how intransigence works on the national or world scale.

As the Rolling Stones lyrics say "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes well you might find you get what you need"

Finally, if my participation on this thread only increases the unfocussed passion, I hereby withdraw. The problem will get solved one way or another. Folks will get or will find a gym. And them we'll move on to the next crisis.

Posted by Disclosure of Financial Statement and Reporting
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 15, 2014 at 12:10 pm

While the financial disclosure requirement for non-profits are well-codified, they are open to interpretation. Following is a website that delineates some common disclosures for non-profits. A well-run non-profit will make operating costs and leasing information public to its contributors and members. We expect that this information will be provided to us at Wednesday night's meeting. Please read and inform yourself before tomorrow's meeting.

Posted by disheartened
a resident of University South
on Jul 15, 2014 at 12:25 pm

Dear 6daysaweekusePM,

You right about the damage. The "professors' corner" on the sofas has been largely vacant the last week. Some of our most loyal, generous, and thoughtful members have taken flight. It was truly sad to hear their disappointment with the lack of communication from YMCASV. These were the members who helped start the PM Y and the EPA Y. They tend to be an older group and certainly got the message that they were a liability rather than an asset to the Y.

Whatever the excuse is for not discussing the decision to close the Page Mill Y was, it has done irreparable damage to the YMCASV's reputation and status in this Valley. It does not appear that YMCASV is attempting any damage control, a extremely poor choice for their executives.

One of the things that made the Page Mill Y so unique was the conversations that took place there. These older members were instrumental in forming the great economy of this Valley. I guess the YMCASV thinks that they have outlived their usefulness

Posted by Don't Give Up Hope
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 15, 2014 at 1:09 pm

The five oclock aerobics class, which has been held for over 20 years and is taught by a volunteer, is always packed and was more full than ever yesterday. So don't give up hope. If we can solve this problem in one way or another, I would bet that most of the loyal Page Millers will stick with us.

Posted by yes_that_is_like_me
a resident of Triple El
on Jul 15, 2014 at 1:18 pm

I agree with "disheartened" about the damage and the "professor's corner."

I'm not one of the professors, but I am one the PM Y members who has barely been to the Y since the closure decision was announced. I went the day after the announcement only to find "the black shirts" working the floor. The black shirts were spreading falsehoods about the PM Y (like Ross Road was remodeled in 1991 to replace it) and going on about the benefits of the EPA and Ross Road Y. They were not PM Y employees, and, in fact, that first day, I did not see any of our "regular" employees. It was uncomfortable and disorienting.

I'm not one of the "oldest" members, I'm in my late 50's, but I have been a member for &gt; 30 years. That first visit after the closure was enough to make it so I've only been to PM Y a few times since. I'm holding out from joining another fitness center till this sorts out and probably we will have some sort of direction tomorrow.

Shame on Elizabeth Jordan and the SV YMCA and what they have done to the Page Mill Y community, especially the vulnerability that our senior members must feel. More shame on them for making a decision to close right after we raised money and without involving the community.

SV YMCA is a disgrace to the YMCA community as evidenced by their behavior as well as the hurt caused to its members and the greater Palo Alto community. It's going to take way more than an hour tomorrow night to repair the damage that they have caused.

Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 15, 2014 at 3:18 pm

The SVYMCA has provided so may contradicting and incorrect information pertaining to the reasons for closing the PM Y, that it will be extremely difficult to get any valuable information out of them them on Wednesday night unless the questioning is done by attorneys with vast experience in fields like financial statements by non-profits and by CPAs experienced in the same field. I doubt that the SV Y representatives will not chow up carrying any confirmable financial information, so this will not be easy, to say the least.

Posted by anger and grief
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 15, 2014 at 4:11 pm

Dear Ross Road, Your
Your comments have been very helpful but I disagree with the one stating "Thus far, I have only witnessed hate, selfishness and bitter arguments in this effort to keep PM Y open." There have been many heart-felt odes to the greatness of the PM community, excellent ideas for keeping it open, willingness to compromise, creative ideas how to recreate ourselves, and calls for open communication about the financial status of Page Mill.

True, there are some very angry people out there and a few others who want to belittle are efforts so that we stop protesting and advocating for ourselves. Anger about the closure announcement is a normal reaction to the grief of losing a beloved community. A great loss with no viable explanation is like losing someone or something through a tragic accident. We are all processing and I see most of the comments here as helpful and thoughtful. These comment sections have been the only communal outlet to express our frustration. The YMCASV's tactic of refusing to meet with us as a group until we forced it has served to to keep us isolated and in denial. If we don't move through the next stage (anger) we will not be able to come of ways to save us from the closing. The YMCASV will have successfully taken away our Y.

Posted by John Mark
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 15, 2014 at 4:15 pm

If YMCA management believes that they can use the surplus in PM revenues to supplement programs at other sites, have they taken into account the decrease in revenue on from fundraising and memberships when PM closes? The explanation "to better serve the community" sounds like a euphemism for freeing up funds to support less profitable facilities, which may not be there should PM close.

Palo Alto would certainly benefit from the geographic diversity that the PM site offers -- traffic and parking overall are becoming critical issues.

Posted by Don't cede you power of protest to the YMCASV
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 15, 2014 at 5:43 pm

Learned Helplessness afflicts the mindsets of people who have come to believe that they are at the mercy of external circumstances. People come to believe they cannot change outcomes or succeed in the face of decisions in which they had no input. People become convinced that the odds are stacked against them, that they are the victims of circumstance, and there is no no way to succeed. YMCASV keeps repeating that their decision is irreversible, trying to convince us that the cause is hopeless. Don't surrender your power to them because they say "resistance is futile". This is precisely what they are counting on.

Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 15, 2014 at 7:17 pm

Elizabeth Jordan initially dismissed the idea of a meeting with the PM Y to discuss the closure as futile, because, according to her, the decision was "irreversible". Only the fact that the media got hold of this matter, and that it might become national news, made her relent on the meeting. Couple that with the fact she was willing to come up with incorrect, contradictory, quite absurd and rapidly changing rational for the closure, and we should realize that the SVYMCA board is not going to change its mind, unless they are met with stiff resistance and pointed questions on Wednesday night. This is going to be a fascinating encounter.

Posted by boscoli would you be are speaker?
a resident of Woodside
on Jul 15, 2014 at 8:48 pm

Dear Boscoli,
You have been with us for 3 weeks making cogent comments. You would be an ideal person to present the financial questions. As you said "The SVYMCA has provided so may contradicting and incorrect information pertaining to the reasons for closing the PM Y, that it will be extremely difficult to get any valuable information out of them unless the questioning is done by attorneys with vast experience in fields like financial statements by non-profits and by CPAs experienced in the same field. I doubt that the SV Y representatives will not show up carrying any confirmable financial information, so this will not be easy, to say the least."

Would you consider being our spokesperson on these matter? Those of us who are not experts in this type of questioning would appreciate your skills. If there any other attorneys or financial experts in our audience, we ask you to identify yourselves tomorrow. YMCASV is counting on us being overly emotional, too disorganized and tangental to stay on point when it comes to financial matters, Please help us out. Does everyone out there reading us support this idea? Please let us hear from you.

Posted by Why kill the golden goose?
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 16, 2014 at 10:08 am

The Page Mill YMCA is an existing, intact, thriving Y which meets the City of Palo Alto's goal on healthy aging in place. It meets the goals the City has outline for meeting increased social needs of its aging population.

The City of Palo Alto is developing strategies to meet the dramatic increase in its aging population. The boomer population went from 17.5% in 1990 to 22% in 2000. Palo Alto has more seniors than any other community in the County other than Los Altos. It is expected in the next 20 years 40% of the population will be over 55 years of age.

In Palo Alto's White Paper on the "impact of the aging baby boom population of palo alto's social and community service, 2006.

www.avenidas.or/assets/pdf/PA-Boomer-Impact-Study.pdf

They conclude in part that the challenge is three-fold (paraphrased):
How can new and existing resources be better used to handle the increase in aging Palo Alto seniors?
How to support the dramatic rise in the number of older people in Palo Alto? 23%
How can the City of Palo Alto use the swelling intellectual and labor source from these seniors?

Posted by YMCASV is wasting $3000,000.00 shutting us down
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Jul 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm

If you are a Page Mill member don't give up your membership or switch it to another Y before December 31. YMCASV apparently has plenty of money to burn. They will be paying the membership fees for PM members Oct. 1 through Dec. 1. Rough calculations estimate to be that buyout amount to be about $45,000.00 per month x 3 equals $135,000.

Information from the Board indicated that a modest estimate of the cost to YMCASV to shut down the Page Mill Y with severance packages, attorney fees, reconfiguring the Ross Road parking lot, seeking permission from the City of Palo Alto for increased usage at Ross Road, dealing with neighbor complaints from Ross Road will exceed $300,000.

Kathy and Elizabeth, We question your leadership when you can afford to waste $300,000.00 to shut us down.

Posted by boscoli
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 16, 2014 at 7:49 pm

I completely agree. The PM Y has subsidized for many years under-utilized facilities like EPA and poorly run ones like Ross Rd. The members have been extremely generous in the fundraising drives. [Portion removed.]

Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund
For the last 23 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away more than $4 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. When you make a donation, every dollar is automatically doubled, and 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.